Showing posts with label hacktivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hacktivism. Show all posts

Thursday, July 2, 2009

How to Redesign our Communities for the Internet Age

Edward Miller is guest blogging this month.

There is a long list of crises that we need to face and I wont waste time boring you by listing them. As our brightest minds admit they were wrong, I hope that I can say, without qualification, that big changes in our thinking are required. Unfortunately, we haven't made that "Change" even though we now have some new faces in power, and a bunch of old faces out of business or in prison.

There is still an unquestioned belief in the need for major public transportation projects, global supply chains, large scale social programs, and economies of scale. These have become so integral to our way of life, that they are hardly ever questioned. Granted, Wal-Mart is often used as a public target for venting our frustrations at these things, but virtually all business nowadays is conducted using global supply chains, economies of scale, and so forth. Thus, our political discourse usually revolves around ways to prop up these very systems, since these are the only ones we know. We believe we require trillions in "infrastructure" funding. We believe that we must "create jobs." We believe we must become "competitive" in the international marketplace. All of these assumptions are echoed in academia, merely using fancy jargon as a substitute for insight.

Let me first say that I accept the logic of comparative advantage and economies of scale as it applies to the capitalist mode of production, and it can truly be the most "efficient" allocation of resources in a quantitative sense, though not always. Yet, as Peter Drucker once said, there is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. I do not accept that the inevitable centralization of power from this sort of production is a good thing. Centralized powers are able to create artificial scarcities, in order to inflate profits at the expense of everyone else. This invariably requires things like corporatism, regulatory capture, secrecy, and rent seeking.

None of these things are very amenable to true progress, which requires openness, peer review, constructive criticism, and creativity. The types of innovations that occur under these centralized systems, even if they take on a bourgeois bohemian quality and aren't bland and soul-crushing, are incredibly stifling of progress. Open standards are shucked in favor of closed proprietary ones whenever a corporation can get away with it. Parts are never interchangeable. The production processes are so far removed from our daily lives that we have no idea about the processes involved in the creation of the product, and indeed breaking open the gizmo more likely than not voids the warranty.... though I'm not sure you'd even want to open it up considering the high density of toxic crap trapped inside.

All of this has had corrosive effects on our culture, as well as our environment. Our hyper-consumerist culture encourages us to get the latest and greatest stuff. We follow a sequence of fads specialized to our exact niche market (hipster, redneck, emo, rock, punk, goth, anime, whatever). We indulge in enormous quantities of unsustainable, non-renewable, and disposable products. Even more discouragingly, many companies use engineered obsolescence to artificially increase output at the expense of the environment.

We are now lamenting the fact that none of us have a clue about what it actually takes to produce tangible, concrete things which improve our lives. We are too busy answering phones, producing ad campaigns, and writing paperwork. Thus, instead of becoming active participants in the production of our culture and economy, or even informed consumers, we have become totally and completely dependent upon forces far beyond our control. As the market swings out of control, so do our jobs, our homes, and our very lives.

Yet, a revolution has occurred right under our noses whose effects have yet to be fully explored, and most of us are completely unaware. Digital communications technologies, especially the Internet, have enabled new modes of production and organization, such as Open Source and P2P, which have never before been possible. If we can learn to harness the power of these systems, we can escape the path our current world is on where each labor-saving device seems only to cause us to work longer hours. Where social programs seem only to foster dependence. Instead of innovating in accordance with the logic of centralized power and artificial scarcity, we can innovate in accordance with human needs and wants.

We can collaboratively build all the necessary life support systems needed, but have it be on a self-contained and local scale. It cannot be known whether the shape this takes will favor truly scale invariant systems, like the hyper-local RepRap project which is allowing production right in your living room, or whether it ends up fostering a new urbanism where production takes place in vertical farms, factories, and community hackerspaces. Talk about vertical integration! It also cannot be known how it will reshape our communities, since each community would be redesigned in a participatory fashion by the members of the community itself. Some may opt for small scale pedestrian-friendly towns in harmony with nature, while others may opt for sustainable urban metropolises, and others may ditch both for self-sufficient mobile homes and yachts.

In each of these cases, the means of production will likely have been placed in the hands of individuals, and drudgery will be automated away much like how open source software projects collaboratively eliminate bugs and expose flaws in wiki articles. Considering all of this, it may be useful to begin talking again about incentivizing local production. "Import substitution," has long been a naughty word among economists. It is the process of breaking free of foreign dependence by incentivizing local production. Usually via tariffs and other measures. However, this would be a misguided way of going about this.

We don't need to incentivize local production of just any type. We need to incentivize open and collaborative production. For example, creating prizes for contributing to the Commons. In 2007 there was a proposed bill called the Medical Innovation Prize Act which sought to incentivize patent-less medical inventions. If only it was this sort of mentality that guided us for the past few decades, then we wouldn't have ever had such a monstrosity of a healthcare system. The same mentality could guide any industry. A useful exercise would be to think how it could guide the industry you are currently involved in.

Finally, the creation of new local credit systems could also incentivize collaborative local production. There are lots of new concepts along these lines. I also suggest you check out some of my previous work on this topic. It is this sort of thinking which is required for a peaceful transition to a new era for our civilization. It will allow us to become resilient to the converging threats which face us from ecological destruction to market failure to terrorism. Global supply chains have shown themselves to be exceedingly vulnerable to these shocks. I hope we can overcome these by localizing production by utilizing global knowledge sharing so we can all enjoy the type of future some of the previous guest bloggers have been talking about.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Latest audiocast posted: 2008.02.19

The latest Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. You can subscribe to this feed. Go here for alternative audio formats.

In this episode I discuss a conversation I had with Alcor's Tanya Jones, why the Drake Equation is obsolete, and Anonymous's war on Scientology.

Are illegal tactics against Scientology justified?

I have been closely following the exploits of Anonymous with no small amount of fascination. For those living in a cave on Venus, Anonymous is a hacktivist group that made headlines late last month by declaring war on the Church of Scientology and by launching several initiatives to that end - some legal, some not so legal.

At first I was delighted by the news. Finally, I thought, somebody is actually doing something about this blight. As my readers know, I'm no fan of Scientology. I've spoken out against their unscrupulousness for some time now. I have friends who have been persecuted by the cult and know of others who have been caught in their brain-washing web. I’ve also had my own run-ins with the group and their drones.

But the more I consider the actions of Anonymous, the more I am convinced that they're going about their campaign in the wrong way. Yes, there are advantages to a devil-may-care approach and its attendant publicity, but ultimately I think their strategy will fail. By stooping down to the level of the Scientologists and engaging in illegal activities, Anonymous puts itself at considerable risk. At the same time they undermine more legitimate efforts to see Scientology finally branded as the anti-social money-grubbing racket that it is.

The story so far

Anonymous first emerged this past January in response to Scientology’s rather laughable effort to ban a scandalous video of Tom Cruise enthusiastically praising the virtues of Scientology. Anonymous launched their campaign, called Project Chanology, by publicly launching a creepy-as-hell YouTube video titled, “Message to Scientology” on January 21, 2008. In the video Anonymous accused Scientology of promoting internet censorship while declaring their own goal of working to see Scientology expelled from the internet. Anonymous, which appears to be made up of a disparate collection of hackers and activists, state that they are "everyone and everywhere" and have "no leaders."

Following the release of the video, Anonymous launched a number of denial-of-service attacks, black faxes, prank calls, and other measures meant to disrupt Scientology’s operations.

Earlier this month, Anonymous shifted to legal methods, including an attempt to get the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Church of Scientology's tax exempt status.

Anonymous also organized a number of world-wide protests. Participants were invited to put on a mask (to retain anonymity) and protest outside Scientology centers. Much to my amazement, the Toronto rally attracted nearly 50 masked protesters. Similar scenes were played out in over 90 locations around the world and involved over 7,000 protesters.

Pros and Cons

Without a doubt, Anonymous has done more in the past two months than any other group to make it socially acceptable to protest against Scientology. By disingenuously hiding behind the shield of religious freedom, and by relentlessly harassing its critics, Scientology has thus far successfully quashed any attempt at protest and action.

Anonymous is changing this. Thanks to their high-profile campaign – illegal or otherwise – they have raised awareness and made it possible for people to feel that they can organize and protest against the cult. And this may in fact turn out to be Anonymous’s greatest victory. The publicity spawned by their efforts may eventually instigate political action.

And it has been the utter lack of political action in North America that has forced a clandestine vigilante group to emerge in the first place. While European countries like Germany and France are working to ban Scientology on the grounds that they violate human rights and take advantage of the vulnerable, it is a vastly different story here in North America. Our misguided mandate to unquestioningly honor all forms of religious expression has created a loophole for Scientology enabling it to spread its memetic cancer. And virtually nobody does anything about it—and those few who do are ignored or declared to be intolerant.

Which is why Anonymous has emerged and why they feel they have had to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, they have decided to launch some questionable practices of their own, namely illegal tactics like denial-of-service attacks.

While there's a certain satisfaction in seeing Scientology on the receiving end, this is not a viable long-term strategy. It's clearly a form of harassment; the authorities have already been involved. A worst case scenario may see Anonymous’s members being charged with instigating hate crimes (should its members be uncovered, of course -- which brings to mind another issue: given the distributed and collaborative nature of the group, can there such a thing as distributed guilt?).

These approaches may also perpetuate a persecution complex among Scientologists and prompt them to defend their religious freedoms even further. As Scientology critic Andreas Heldal-Lund has said, "Attacking Scientology like that will just make them play the religious persecution card ... They will use it to defend their own counter actions when they try to shatter criticism and crush critics without mercy."

What’s next?

Ultimately, Anonymous’s goal of wanting to have Scientology wiped off the internet will fail. As showcased by the Tom Cruise video, when an attempt is made to remove something from the internet, the opposite actually happens – what’s known as the Streisand Effect.

Moreover, illegal tactics will only take away from those genuine efforts that could actually work to see Scientology legislated into oblivion. If France and Germany can work to do it, so can the United States and Canada.

Finally, because Anonymous has proven effective at generating publicity and for its masterly methods at organizing dissent, they should concentrate their energy and skills in this area. By getting people out into the streets, and by broadcasting the sins of Scientology, political and legal action may soon follow.

This is a process that will require patience, persistence and action. As Trey Parker and Matt Stone have proclaimed, the "million-year war for Earth has only just begun.”